I think this points to the real problem: it is hard to evaluate how "good" someone is during the hiring process

Lots of great coders don't have a big open presence. Years of experience isn't a good sign with the churn in tech, plus you don't know if they wrote code or just watched. Is being able to do a l33t coding exercise in a fixed time a sign? IMHO I'm decent programmer and I've failed them. Can you come up with an exercise that matches the work that will be done and can be completed in a reasonable amount of time?

And the phrase "matches the work that will be done" is doing some heavy lifting: many companies don't really know what they need. I've seen companies that need 99% soft skills that want a ton of niche tech experience. Or advertise for something other than the real dumpster-fire that you'll have to work on.

This is the fundamental reason that knowing someone works: they know your coding skills and they can give you the inside scoop on the position.

That isn't quite the same. In the job market, leaving the market isn't really an option for the seller (employee), unless you are independently wealthy. So you generally have to settle for a price that is lower than your worth.

There is also insufficient information going the other way. Unlike buying a car, there is more to the buyer's side than just money. There is the work environment, how well employees are treated, the probability of future raises, probability the company will lay you off or cut pay or force you to relocate in the future, etc. And that assymetry impacts the market as well. For example a company might be a really great place to work, and that would compensate for a lower salary, but the prospective employee doesn't know that.

The best way to get a job _has always been, and will always be_, knowing somebody.

Networking is an essential life-skill, and worth all the discomfort it takes to get better at it. (You don't have to be the top 1% of networkers to be successful).

I have interviewed dozens of people for fairly specialized roles and the number of people with an impressive looking resume that end up being pretenders is probably greater than 90%. I would much rather interview and hire someone that another trusted party can vouch for. I understand that everyone wants to grow in their career, stretch themself, market themself well, etc. but there is a lot of blatant lying and cheating going on in the labor market nowadays.

Im curious if this is true.